Debates of May 7th, 2012

Question No. 543

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Fleet Separation and Owner/Operator policies: (a) will the government proceed with a policy change and, if so, when will a decision be made in this regard; (b) has the government conducted an analysis in the past relating to a possible change to the policies; (c) what steps has the government taken to consult fishers regarding the policies and when, before holding consultations did the government give notice of the consultations; (d) how many consultative submissions have there been from corporations with regard to the policies and how many have there been from independent fishers; (e) what (i) economic, (ii) social, (iii) cultural ramifications would result from a policy change; and (f) what (i) research, (ii) actions, (iii) investments has the government undertaken to develop a plan to change the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Fleet Separation and Owner/Operator policies?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), while the department seeks to continuously improve commercial fisheries management and undertakes various analyses as part of its regular policy work, no decision has been made by the government to proceed with a policy change regarding Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s, DFO’s, fleet separation and owner/operator policies. Formal processes have been used in the past to review various policies; for example, in 1999 the Atlantic fisheries policy review, AFPR, was launched to propose a framework for managing east coast fisheries and build consensus around a renewed vision for the fishery. DFO also receives frequent requests from stakeholders for flexibility from various commercial fisheries management policies and management measures. As a matter of process, this often results in thorough analysis of existing policies to see where change may be needed to help improve economic outcomes. Subsequently, flexibilities such as licence stacking, licence combining, exemptions and other actions have been taken for the benefit of harvesters.

For the most recent round of consultations on commercial fisheries policies and management measures, the purpose of the consultations was threefold: to consult with stakeholders on conservation policies under the sustainable fisheries framework, to inform stakeholders about plans for long-term stability in fisheries and to seek stakeholder views on measures to provide opportunities for the industry to achieve greater economic prosperity. It was another step in the ongoing effort to continuously improve commercial fisheries management and provide greater opportunities for economic prosperity in Canada’s fishing industry.

With regard to (c), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, developed a discussion document, "The Future of Canada’s Commercial Fisheries", detailing the department’s policy direction to modernize commercial fisheries management. DFO provided access to this document by posting it online, emailing it directly to various stakeholders and mailing it to aboriginal groups throughout Canada.

A two-pronged approach was developed to engage people in the discussion: face-to-face meetings and an online process. The full-day face-to-face meetings were held in each DFO administrative area over the course of January and February 2012. Invitations were sent out several weeks in advance of each respective meeting.

For the online component, email notifications were sent on January 12, 2012, to stakeholders in the commercial and processing sectors, as well as aboriginal groups, environmental non-governmental organizations, economists, academics and industry associations in an attempt to engage a wide variety of views.

As the process progressed, the consultation period was extended to March 14, 2012, and additional meetings were held to engage with specific groups to hear their unique perspectives separate from the industry.

With regard to (d), during the consultative process DFO did not require participants to identify themselves as “corporations” or “independent fishers” when making a submission. The categories used were ”aboriginal groups, academic, commercial, economist, ENGO, province/territory, DFO, other federal department, processing, recreational, other”. These are not easily transferable to the categories highlighted in this particular question.

With regard to (e)(i), (e)(ii) and (e)(iii), the purpose of the consultation process was to seek feedback from stakeholders on the entire fisheries management regime. This approach was taken so as to not restrict what stakeholders could comment on concerning their experiences with the current management practices.

With regard to (f)(i), (f)(ii) and (f)(iii), as indicated in the answer to (a), the department undertakes policy research and analysis work on a regular basis to improve the fisheries management regime in Canada.

Question No. 544

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to the proposed Muskrat Falls hydro-electric development: (a) who conducted the economic analysis of the project for or on behalf of the government; (b) when was this analysis (i) started, (ii) completed, (iii) submitted to the government; (c) has the analysis been publicly released; (d) if the analysis has not been publicly released, (i) why not, (ii) when will it be publicly released; (e) if the analysis was conducted on behalf of the government by a third party, (i) who conducted it, (ii) on behalf of which department or agency was it conducted, (iii) what was the total cost of the analysis, (iv) was the contract for the analysis awarded on the basis of competitive bid or was it sole-sourced; and (f) what were the risks and uncertainties identified in the course of the analysis?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the economic analysis was undertaken by Natural Resources Canada.

With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), the economic analysis began on September 29, 2011 and was completed on January 25, 2012. With regard to (b)(iii), the report on the economic analysis was submitted to the government on March 9, 2012.

With regard to (c), yes, the economic analysis can be found at the following link: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2012/31/6064.

Part (d) is not applicable, as the economic analysis has been publicly released.

Part (e) is not applicable, as the economic analysis was not conducted by a third party.

With regard to (f), the risks and uncertainties are discussed in the report. Briefly, they relate to the forecast assumptions of oil prices, capital and operating costs of various supply options; the drivers of future demand of Newfoundland and Labrador, including population, economic activity, technological change, consumer tastes; and opportunities for future electricity exports from the project.

Question No. 550

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

With regard to the 2011 General Election, for every federal electoral district in British Columbia and for the province of British Columbia as a whole: (a) how many contacts has Elections Canada received, including all contacts lodged directly with Elections Canada, forwarded by returning officers or from any other source, of (i) repetitive, late-evening, bizarre, or rude phone calls, (ii) misdirections to wrong polling station addresses; (b) how many of (a) were received (i) during the writ period, (ii) in the week following the general election, (iii) since then; (c) according to the contacts Elections Canada has received, how many of (a) indicated they were from (i) the Conservative Party of Canada, (ii) the Liberal Party of Canada, (iii) the New Democratic Party of Canada; and (d) how many late voter registration papers were approved in British Columbia by a returning officer without the voter’s current or previous address appearing on the voter registration form?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on March 29, 2012, in regard to the allegations of wrongdoing during the 41st general election.

During his appearance, the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that Elections Canada received approximately 70 complaints during or immediately after the election, alleging various forms of improper telephone communications. The Chief Electoral Officer further indicated that close to 40,000 people have since contacted Elections Canada to express concerns. Of these contacts, over 800 were complaints alleging specific occurrences of improper or fraudulent calls across the country. As indicated by the Chief Electoral Officer during his appearance, providing further details on the complaints would risk interfering with the confidentiality and integrity of the Commissioner of Canada Elections’ ongoing investigation. Therefore, consistent with the spirit of the Access to Information Act, which recognizes the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the Commissioner’s investigation, Elections Canada is not in a position at the present time to provide additional information, including information specific to the Province of British Columbia.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 533 and 551 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 533

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

With regard to the Market Basket Measure: (a) which government department is responsible for deciding how it will be calculated; (b) what changes were made to the calculation of shelter costs within the past three years; (c) who made the decision to change the calculation of shelter costs; (d) who was consulted on the decision to change the calculation of shelter costs; (e) what kind of evaluation was performed on the new calculation of shelter costs to ensure that it still represented a reasonable measure of the actual costs of housing; (f) when will the government review the shelter cost calculation again; and (g) what will be the process for reviewing the shelter cost?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 551

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

With regard to the Centenaries Program funded under the program authority of Western Economic Diversification (WD) and delivered by WD and Canadian Heritage: (a) what is the purpose, cost, and timeframe of all current, ongoing, or completed (i) programs, (ii) commitments, (iii) agreements, (iv) expenditures to commemorate the 100th anniversaries of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, including, but not limited to, capital legacy projects as well as commemorative and celebratory events or any projects or programs transferred at any point to other departments for implementation; (b) what is the (i) source, (ii) partner, (iii) commitment, (iv) value, (v) timeframe of all funds leveraged from other funding sources in support of (a); (c) how did the government measure the success, effectiveness, and efficiency of all projects, programs, commitments, agreements, expenditures, and timeframes referred to in (a) and (b); and (d) what steps has WD taken to ensure that recommendation number one of the March 2010 Evaluation of the Centenaries Program, which is that “the department should ensure its corporate database captures relevant project recommendations and financial information in a timely manner,” be implemented?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my constituents in Gatineau, but I am not proud to rise on Bill C-38, which should be extremely important because of what the budget contains. It is a huge document. The only bill I have ever seen that was bigger was Bill C-10, which was quite lengthy.

Bill C-38 is a hefty bill containing 753 clauses, only 51 of which have to do with taxes. The other 702 clauses set out a new way of governing. If that is not doing a bad job, I do not know what it is. That may be why the people of Gatineau are so fed up with this government.

Not a day goes by when I do not receive tons of messages via email, Facebook and Twitter from people in Gatineau who are fed up with the way the government does things: always acting without any transparency, in secret, without considering whether what they are doing makes sense or debating with the opposition to try to make the best laws here in Canada, and always trying to pull a fast one in big bills like this one.

The Conservatives are lucky to be in the majority with their big 39% of the vote because otherwise this bill would likely cause the same reaction as in 2008 when the Conservatives tried to slip into the economic and fiscal update two politically explosive measures, which had never been debated before: the abolition of public financing of parties and of the right to strike in the federal public service. It seems as though the Conservatives were not put off by the spontaneous reaction of the Canadian public on that occasion. The Conservatives do not give two hoots and believe that they have the majority with their impressive 39%, and they are trying to pull the same stunt yet again.

I certainly will not be encouraging the people in my riding of Gatineau to like this government any more than they do. They already tell me every day that they are not really happy with the government and that they are very much looking forward to 2015.

That being said, when you consider the overall impact of Bill C–38, it is enough to give you shivers down the spine. Moreover, I would ask the Conservative members to do more than simply rashly and blindly do what the first and second rows tell them to do. Indeed, they will have to explain in their respective ridings why particular ways of doing things have been instituted because Bill C–38 is going to affect a number of issues that are extremely important to Canadians.

By the way, for those who are not already aware of it, our debate is still subject to what I call a gag order. The government likes to call it a limited time for debate and boasts that it has allocated four long days for debate. The government has told us that the member who was finance critic before the end of the leadership race, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has already used up all the available hours.

But the fact is that it was not a filibuster. It was simply a demonstration of the fact that we used the only time the government allocated to us, whereas normally in this House members are given an opportunity to express themselves, not necessarily to their hearts content, but in keeping with the principles of representation. I thought that we were here to represent our constituents, but that does not seem to be the case. I consider myself lucky to be one of the chosen few who will be able to rise during the couple of days that the glorious Conservative government has allocated to us to speak about such an important bill.

If I were to put on my justice critic hat, I would say that there is even a chapter that applies to this in Bill C-38. I would not have a clue what it is doing there. Perhaps it is for economic, budgetary or other reasons? Not at all.

It would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to eliminate the requirement of a hearing for certain reviews.

When you read this kind of thing in a budget implementation act, in Bill C-38, you wonder whether someone has made a mistake. You look at the printed pages and the computer screen in order to see whether some other sections or some other legislation has been mixed in with it. But no, this is really what Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, says.

In fact, it announces plans to review the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Bill C-38 also talks about implementing the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America.

Just by themselves, these are all things that could take a some time to study and to determine whether this procedure is correct and in line with Canada's rules of law and natural justice.

Unfortunately, once again they are using the sledgehammers on us, just to satisfy their ideology that aims at reducing government with no other common thread than that of reducing for the sake of reducing and minimizing the things that they do not believe in. There will be changes to old age security, employment insurance and the Canada pension plan.

The people watching us know that we have talked a great deal about increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67, something that makes many people feel insecure, even those who are already in that age category and who will not necessarily be affected by the change. These people are well aware that if the government is now able to do this to the generation that is coming up behind them, nothing will prevent it from saying anything, any time, anyhow, and from changing the things on which they were once able to rely.

There is nothing that is certain in life any more, and this is perhaps the message I am sending to the people who are watching, and particularly to the voters in my riding who sent me here with 62% of the vote, unlike the Conservatives who received 39%, and who are pulling out their hair at hearing it said so often that it does not make sense. Is there anything that is untouchable in the opinion of this government? Are there rights that are not rights?

Another example is the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which is being repealed. In Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, the government has decided that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act will be repealed. This act was created in the 1930s to set wage standards and minimum hours of work for construction workers working on federally funded projects. Under the act, salaries are set in accordance with current industry norms, and hours are set according to provincial standards. Eliminating these minimum standards will allow employers to circumvent rates set by unions. Congratulations. This is yet another attack against those the government likes to call “big union bosses“.

I have some news for them. Thanks to all of that and perhaps to certain “big union bosses” and certain battles that have been fought over the past decades, children of a certain age have been prohibited from working, because it simply did not make sense. Pregnant women are no longer forced to continue working if their work becomes too dangerous. The government must stop painting people who fight for legitimate causes as brainless criminals who are doing this simply to upset the public. What upsets the public is when they see bills like this one, bills of this size, into which the government tries to slip all kinds of measures, because it cannot do so through separate bills, since it is afraid of attracting too much attention.

I will leave it to my colleagues to give plenty of other examples of things that will have a serious impact, for the examples I have given are merely small ones.

On behalf of the people of Gatineau, I say shame on this government for introducing this bill, which demonstrates its clear contempt for democracy and contempt for the most fundamental rights of the people of Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very interesting.

I completely agree with the criticisms that the member has made of the budget implementation bill. I appreciate the stand the official opposition is taking that key laws must be removed and not passed all as one.

However, I am wondering if the member could help me as well. I know the Minister of Finance cannot, as stated in the House of Commons Practice and Procedure, include measures that were not mentioned in advance of the budget. I cannot find any reference in the budget to destruction of fish habitat laws, to changing the Species at Risk Act to allow the National Energy Board to permit destruction of species at risk, nor do I find any reference to changing the Navigable Waters Protection Act. How is it that those could even be purported to be part of a budget 2012 measure?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I would have to say that I do not have an intelligent explanation for what the Conservatives are doing. Many measures in the bill are absolutely incomprehensible.

She gave some examples. but there are many others. We wonder how the government could be in favour of putting an end to the Kyoto protocol.

Just imagine: a single sentence in Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill, announces that the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, Chapter 30 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, is repealed, effectively killing the Kyoto protocol. That is what this government does after we entered into international agreements and gave our word as a country.

I want to tell the people who are watching—and I say this with no ill will, because it is the truth—to be careful when dealing with the Government of Canada, because its word is not worth very much.

With a government that is prepared to do something like that, it is any wonder that the budget said nothing about the measures my colleague mentioned, yet they showed up in Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill? Nothing in this House surprises me anymore. There are things that disappoint me every day, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite are very concerned about the amount of time for debate on this bill, although it will have been the longest debate of any budget bill in 20 years. However, has the member complained to her own leader? Did she take a walk up to his office and ask her leader what happened? Why did one member of the NDP caucus get 13 hours to speak in this House to this bill when 78 members of that party could have taken 10 minutes each to speak to the bill? Did she raise that issue?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that, when it comes to strategy, it is the Conservatives who assign time limits, something they do not seem to understand. It is not as though our colleague filibustered by himself for hours on end. Our time was allocated. Our message was the result of a collective effort. Moreover, I commend all my colleagues and our critic. It was the game that the Conservatives forced us to play, and in that respect, we came to the party. We sent a message, of which I am extremely proud. That message demonstrated that we are a solid, official opposition that spent the many hours that the member just referred to opposing the Conservative government's budget.

In previous parliaments, we were used to having the Liberal party as the official opposition. We did not hear a peep out of them. They talked furtively in the corridors but, when it came time to take action, they voted alongside the government and allowed everything to go through.

I am much happier to see my colleague rise. We were able to give him the information he required and everything that the people from our ridings had to say on the issue. So we are actually extremely proud. It was an effort. It was a message, a signal sent to the Conservatives, who do not listen to Canadians. It is true that they listen only to the 39%, their big majority. That is why they seem to be acting out. However, the fact is that they are the ones who are imposing time limits. And that is a violation of democracy.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation bill today.

My overall take may be from a somewhat different perspective than most members in this House. Most of the debate on this bill has been centred around what the bill does to deal with today's issues for Canadians who are working hard and trying to pay their bills, to thrive and to improve their lives across Canada today, adult people.

However, in my three years in this Parliament, I find we do not talk often enough about our young people, our children, teens and grandchildren. What about their future?

My generation's parents fought World War II. They suffered a great deal in that war, immeasurably, great losses and thousands of them never came back. However, since that time, the generation as a group has for the rest of their lives been the best off economically of any generation in history, something they earned the hard way.

That is not to say that they are all well off, as that is certainly not true, but Canada's seniors have benefits as a generation that they only dreamed of during the war. In their senior years, they have, as a group, the largest accumulation of wealth in history. Those who never earned enough to buy a home or save are the first generation in history with unlimited free health care. They have CPP, OAS and many are able to live in the many senior residences we have, supportive housing and long-term care facilities across Canada. They are living the longest as a result.

For those whose incomes are still low, this government has taken hundreds of thousands off the federal tax rolls altogether. We reduced the GST by 2% and other taxes in many ways, including the family caregiver tax credit in this budget, to help improve their quality of life. This is something Canadians should be very proud of. This is, for their generation, the fulfillment of the Canadian dream.

What about the next generation, the ones who are still working and raising families now? We have reduced their taxes in many ways, including for public transit users, homebuyers and those whose children have disabilities. We have increased health care funding by 6% every year since 2006. However, they are feeling squeezed. In fact, their total tax load, including provincial taxes and property taxes, and debtload is a big problem and this reflects on their children.

Family debt is now at an all-time high at a ratio of 1.51 to net income. Low interest rates and some pretty easy credit have proven attractive for consumers but in Ontario, where our federal government has lowered taxes in 140 ways, putting $3,000 for the average family back into their pockets, the Ontario Liberals have been putting their hands into those pockets with the so-called health tax, the HST and the eco tax.

Every time the people of Ontario turn around, their paycheque shrinks and things cost more. That is a key reason that household debt is so high.

Our local bankers tell me that in my community of Oakville there are young couples carrying mortgages of up to $500,000. This is a concern because in Ontario not only have electricity rates gone up in recent years, but they are poised to double in the next five years again, to pay billions of dollars to our wind generation machines, windmills that only produce electricity 20% of the time.

In Oakville, the Liberal caucus majority on the town council increases taxes every year with abandon, this year 6.3%, without a thought of how families will be able to pay it. With a $15 billion deficit and $242 billion debt, it is only a matter of time until Ontario's Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty breaks his prime election promise for the third election in a row to not increase taxes and creates yet a new tax. It may be a tax on car license plates or a new provincial property tax or even a levy on Ontario's 400 series highways or he may just increase the HST. Premier dad will tell us, “It hurts me just as much as it hurts you.” Not quite.

When interest rates begin to climb, as they surely will in the coming years, Ontario families could face the perfect storm: increased mortgage payments, double hydro costs, increased municipal taxes and Dalton McGuinty's new tax, all at the same time.

Ontario families and others across Canada are in a very precarious financial position. The Conservatives understand this. We committed to reduce the burden on families and this budget keeps that commitment to not increase taxes despite the recession.

After decades of electing governments that tell them they do not have to pay their bills because the next generation will do it for them, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France and the U.K. have all increased taxes on people to balance their budgets. While that is going on in Europe, our taxes are not going up, and our budget will be balanced, as promised, by 2014-15. This is a tremendous accomplishment. Then we will begin to pay down debt that successive generations have created and would otherwise hand down to our children and grandchildren as we did before the recession from 2006-08. That was almost $40 billion worth.

Deficits are really postponed taxes, taxes we leave to our children and grandchildren to pay. Without balancing our budget over the medium term, as this budget will do, we would be greedily taking what should be theirs.

How bad is the debt that we hand to our children? Well, I am going to be a grandfather for the first time in June. I am proud of many things in this country that my granddaughter will benefit from for her entire life, but not how previous generations took too much for themselves and left the bills for her to pay.

At a $602 billion debt federally, and in Ontario another $242 billion, we could present every baby born in Ontario with an invoice stating their personal share of that total debt: $36,800. This is their gift from previous generations. Happy birthday.

However, this budget will put in place what we need to do to stop squandering our wealth on unnecessary interest rate charges over the long term, begin paying down debt in 2015 and leave our children and grandchildren a future where a huge portion of their earnings would not be confiscated to pay for our lifestyle. To do anything less would be more than irresponsible: it would be immoral.

This budget takes a big step in the right direction for a brilliant future for Canada by presenting a better future for our youth. All members should be supporting this budget.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. Since he spoke about Ontario families, I would like to talk to him about a situation caused by the budget and that is the closure of the Kapuskasing experimental farm.

This farm contributes to agricultural research and development. It helps farmers to be more productive, to develop the cattle industry, and to promote, for example, the use of more effective feed for cows. The research conducted at the farm also helps the residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Furthermore, there is a partnership with the UQAT agri–food research centre in Notre-Dame-du-Nord.

I would like to know what the hon. member has against the farming families in Ontario and northern Quebec, who will be affected by this budget. They will end up being unable to develop their industry or to move forward. We are supposed to be stimulating the economy but, when an attempt is made to find tangible ways to help farmers be more productive, the government turns its back on them. What does the hon. member have against farmers in Ontario and Quebec?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I say to my friends on the opposite side that it is a fully private matter for one generation to spend all their savings within their own lifetime. It is like a bumper sticker that says, “I'm spending my children's inheritance”. However, it is a completely different thing to spend that inheritance and then also leave a mortgage behind for the next generation to pay.

I know that members opposite will always find many good reasons to spend money now and leave it to be paid later, but if we continue to do that, we will end up like Greece, Spain and Portugal, unable to pay our bills or even to borrow money to increase our debt. It is not a responsible way to move forward.